Jump to content
Server maintenance Read more... ×
CHESTNUTXE

WINDSOR SMALLBLOCK TALK

Recommended Posts

I saw a 221 windsor for sale today i wonder how high that th8ng will rev

Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk


Same 2.87 inch stroke as the 289 but with a 3.5 inch bore...better to start with the 289.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Same 2.87 inch stroke as the 289 but with a 3.5 inch bore...better to start with the 289.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Isnt there a 260 windsor as well

Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I saw a 221 windsor for sale today i wonder how high that th8ng will rev

Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk

No better than a 289 in theory, both have same stroke. 221 has tiny pistons, sort of like what a 253 is to a 308

Sent from my CPH1920 using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

221 260 and 289 all share the same stroke, the biggest problem with 221's and 260's is the small bore size doesn't let you get a decent size valve without being shrouded/running into the bore, the other problem with 221's and 260's is most them are of the 5 bolt bellhousing variety

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And a 255 (3.68 bore)
260 (3.8 bore)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The 255 has a 3" stroke like the 302 but the crank is a lot lighter, the crank pins are semi-hollow and the counterweights are smaller. Racers in speedway stock classes used to hunt around wreckers for these cranks because they had a lower rotating mass. They could break more easily too but racing is about breaking stuff to win

Sent from my CPH1920 using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And a 255 (3.68 bore)
260 (3.8 bore)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
255 was a smog era us engine, I'd be surprised if there was any over here, apparently there's not a lot of parts interchangeability with regular 8.2 deck Windsors, but I've only ever read about those

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
221 260 and 289 all share the same stroke, the biggest problem with 221's and 260's is the small bore size doesn't let you get a decent size valve without being shrouded/running into the bore, the other problem with 221's and 260's is most them are of the 5 bolt bellhousing variety
On u tube there is a 283 chev that revs to 12000rpm i was just wondering if any of these smaller c.i. windsors would be a high revver

Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On u tube there is a 283 chev that revs to 12000rpm i was just wondering if any of these smaller c.i. windsors would be a high revver

Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk

Other than the 289 not really

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The first Windsor blocks (221/260/289) can theoretically be stroked with the 2M crank from the 302 but the pistons will stick out the bottom of the bores slightly at BDC. Hardly worth worrying about that minor issue but also hardly worth bothering with as Thom said, pre-65 blocks are 5-bolt and rare as anyway.

 

On the subject of the 255, they only made them for 2 miserable years in the 80s (I think 81-82) then they gave up on that dead-end. I think they were good for something like 120 HP. But GM were doing the same thing with the SBC so Ford can't cop too much flak from it. This short production run makes them extremely rare, and pretty much irrelevant now.

 

Sent from my CPH1920 using Tapatalk

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Would the recent 331 stroker kit be ok on a 289 block as i have a chance to grab it,or would the pistons still stick out the btdc of block or cause its a stroker the piston might be shorter ? The block is out of a aussie 68 galaxy rhd and needs 1 sleeve apparently althou it does come with 289 crank n rods ect even small chamber heads

Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Would the recent 331 stroker kit be ok on a 289 block as i have a chance to grab it,or would the pistons still stick out the btdc of block or cause its a stroker the piston might be shorter ? The block is out of a aussie 68 galaxy rhd and needs 1 sleeve apparently althou it does come with 289 crank n rods ect even small chamber heads

Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk

Depends on which 289 block, some 289 blocks the bottom of the bore that protrudes into the crankcase is shorter than in a 302 block, those blocks with the shorter bores putting a 302 crank in them is a bad idea let alone a 331 crank

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Depends on which 289 block, some 289 blocks the bottom of the bore that protrudes into the crankcase is shorter than in a 302 block, those blocks with the shorter bores putting a 302 crank in them is a bad idea let alone a 331 crank
So how would you tell thom im pretty sure its a 6 bolt

Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So how would you tell thom im pretty sure its a 6 bolt

Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk

You'd have to measure the length of the bore in a 302 and make sure the 289 had the same length

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just pick up an AU block if you can. I got two for $300 the pair. One was trashed, the other has been done up and traded for Suzuki 1250 Bandit.
I rebuilt 2 5lt inj motors on this thread 1 eb 1 au only reason for interest was the fact the 289 block was aus delivery engine and ol school but it seems it aint that special and au roller block would be better for allround sake,but what about putting the 289 crank n rods in a 302 block ?

Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I rebuilt 2 5lt inj motors on this thread 1 eb 1 au only reason for interest was the fact the 289 block was aus delivery engine and ol school but it seems it aint that special and au roller block would be better for allround sake,but what about putting the 289 crank n rods in a 302 block ?

Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk

There should be no issue with that except that there's not much point. Stroke is free torque. The later 50oz balance cranks are lighter too (vs 28oz), as they have less internal counter-weighting and more external.

Sent from my CPH1920 using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, CHESTNUTXE said:

what about putting the 289 crank n rods in a 302 block ?

 

Don't think there would be any issue there. You'll probably lose about 15hp on top vs a similar spec 289 but whos counting? Only other thing would be keeping compression up with available heads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
old
 
Saw an interesting video on the tunnel port 302 last night but ford canned it because not reliable and came up with a better idea for can am racing in 69 with the boss 302 engine and in 1970 it made its name in racing but by 71 the boss package was mooved over to the 351c probly the most sought after ford engine .

Sent from my SM-G610Y using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saw an interesting video on the tunnel port 302 last night but ford canned it because not reliable and came up with a better idea for can am racing in 69 with the boss 302 engine and in 1970 it made its name in racing but by 71 the boss package was mooved over to the 351c probly the most sought after ford engine .

Sent from my SM-G610Y using Tapatalk

Yeah I saw one like that too, might be the same video. The tunnel port was a disaster as they just went "bigger is better" without any smart design on the port itself, and with that big pushrod tube right down the middle, it was a dog's breakfast. It made some good figures at peak rpm (8000) but the engines didn't last because they had to sit at those rpm all the time. When they made the Boss, not only did they properly shape and tune the 4V port for the intended rpm range, but they tested the bottom end to 9600rpm to make sure that it would hold together no matter what.

Sent from my CPH1920 using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah I saw one like that too, might be the same video. The tunnel port was a disaster as they just went "bigger is better" without any smart design on the port itself, and with that big pushrod tube right down the middle, it was a dog's breakfast. It made some good figures at peak rpm (8000) but the engines didn't last because they had to sit at those rpm all the time. When they made the Boss, not only did they properly shape and tune the 4V port for the intended rpm range, but they tested the bottom end to 9600rpm to make sure that it would hold together no matter what.

Sent from my CPH1920 using Tapatalk

Yes thats the video 9600 rpm ouch

Sent from my SM-G610Y using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×